Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Also, that article is from September, 2011... more than a year and a half ago. So how valid is that still today? I didn't find a nice chart for BlackBerry's market share in a quick Google search, and I would think that would be a relevant thing to look at in this. I did find that it was dropping after this article, and reached its lowest in February of this year. If BlackBerry's market share kept decreasing since then, however, it would be a safe hypothesis that app developers probably weren't making as much money on BlackBerry any more either. (I did see that BlackBerry's market share increased in April 2013 now, to 1.51%... there is some promise there still)

I thought some of the same things. I haven't bothered to sign up with EDC to see the details, so I'm not personally sure at all about the details of the study. I just thought I would at least provide a source for the data narcc posted.

Same study also found that "Android Market" was the most used, so it's attractive for volume (once your app is actually visible on the play store--as noted in the link I provided, that's the largest complaint about it).

I do have admit part of why I only thought of what I did is that I don't PC game on any system much at all these days (I follow the news about them and occasionally find the time to actually play some, but that's not very common at all these days), so my reasons were from a pretty outside viewpoint on that one, attempting to guess what some additional reasons may be. Clearly this is an example of one reason that just didn't phase me from my more outside viewpoint on this. This is why I ended it with "There's probably more that I didn't even think about"

There's other potential reasons, too, however. Let's see if I can come up with more:

1. There's a higher percentage of people running Linux who have more money to throw at games like this. Having the more money, the higher average paid is really the same (potentially less!) when you're talking averages of their income. (Don't know if there's any truth in this one, but you can test it probably the easiest out of them all, in theory.)

2. Linux people are used to and very comfortable with setting their own price. They regularly get completely free software and donate back to the original project whatever price point they choose. Many have probably watched projects that they donate to succeed, and many have probably watched projects they donate to fail. As such, they've learned some lessons about paying whatever they want and what tends to be a more successful level of pay for a project. Seeing this, they are aware that paying the more money is worth it, because they want these projects to succeed, and being more experienced than most Windows users in doing so, they pay more.

3. Maybe the Linux folk value these games more than the Windows folk do. Thus, the Linux folk pay more, regardless of the other points.

4. There's a lot of cheap people who get a cheap computer running Windows from their parents, and then only pay anything for the Humble Bundle at all, because they can get away with only paying 1 cent or 1 dollar. This isn't as prevalent in the Linux world, where more people buy their computer to their own desires, taking budget into account but not taking it for free off of their parents as much. As such, they're also more willing to pay more for products.

5. Because all of these reasons (including yours) can exist alongside one another and easily interact with one another (amplify each other, even), it could be a combination of all of these factors to various different degrees. Where income could be involved, that could influence the willingness to spend said income. With less games available for Linux, the games that are available could be seen as worth more due to the lack of supply. Putting all of these into play, you can get a complex system resulting in Linux users paying more on average when given the choice.

... There's probably more that I didn't even think about, but I figured that's a good start.

The report found that total music purchases (physical albums, digital albums and digital songs) totaled an all-time high of 1.65 billion units in 2012, a rise of 3.1 percent over 2011.

Well, looks like you're wrong on the broad scope of music sales, for sure.

Unsurprisingly, physical music continued its yearly decline, with sales down by 12.8 percent in 2012. Despite this big drop -- including a 13 percent drop in CD sales -- physical remained the dominant format for music purchases, the study found.

Ok, that one supports your side, but only taken out of the context of my last post (except that you're point that CD sales are dropping--seems to be being replaced by digital and vinyl to make up for it, though).

Definitely against your point of music sales falling. Vinyl is blowing up.

While physical continued its decline, digital sales of music continued to rise in 2012. Thanks in large part to digital music stores on iTunes and Amazon, digital music's 9.1 percent growth meant the format accounted for 37 percent of all album purchases during the year.

Again, music sales rising. Just in a different format. This time, digital.

The positive sales figures have temporarily quelled some of the debate over whether streaming services like Spotify, Pandora or Rdio are killing the music industry. According to Greg Sandoval at CNET, the Nielsen figures don't actually take into account plays or revenue generated from streaming or subscription services, or from satellite or web radio. That's not to say streaming services didn't have a tremendous year too: Spotify racked up 5 million paying subscribers this year, and Pandora saw a record number of listener hours logged on its service.

Well. You don't think that's making up for the dropping CD sales at all, either? Because it most definitely does. Many people listen to Spotify, Pandora, Rdio, etc. instead of buying any of their music directly. Music companies are still making money off of that, while total music sales are growing not even accounting for that.

Sales of CDs and music are falling world.

No source to back up this claim (or any of your other claims for that matter), and the only valid point based on the very first source (which is citing from a Nielsen's Report study, which tends to be a pretty reliable source for these things) is that CD sales are dropping. Otherwise, music sales in general seem to be on the rise.

In my case, it tends to be more along the lines of those ads some times make it easier for me to find what I'm looking for. I may have bought said something either way (often do), but they were often able to point me in a direction that makes finding that easier or some times just the better deal. Result is that they do get my money, funding their advertising, which funds the tools that give an illusion of being free. So, I'm not directly paying for those "free" tools directly, except through my personal data. Indirectly, I am paying for it with money, through the companies I ultimately decide to spend my money at that have gotten their ads targeted to me.

Beyond that, my data, when combined with other people's data to make statistically significant conclusions, has a value to advertising beyond just me eventually paying. In a sense, I'm helping the advertisers target everyone more effectively--or perhaps, figure out how to better target a specific demographic, or anything like that. I think of a store I remember hearing about that by looking at compilations of data, they were able to figure out that certain buying habits statistically meant specific things. They found they could some times predict a women being pregnant before she even knew, for instance. Which helps them target anyone fitting the demographic of those buying habits, and helps them help those demographics buy things.

Basically, by trading my personal data, I'm helping companies help me buy from them, and I'm helping companies help others buy from them. It's not a direct end in itself, as there are steps before it gets to the end, but it could be said that by trading my personal data, I'm potentially helping the economy become more effective. Again, that's simplifying what is really a more complicated process, but it's an interesting way to think of this.

Agreed. In the sense of this, I see my more direct payment to be my data. Most ads these days are based on personal data I have provided by visiting certain sites, posting certain things, etc. That's valuable data to advertising agencies on the internet. I'm providing them said data in exchange for the service that they provide. So, yes, it is not free. However, I'm not directly paying money for it, which provides the illusion of free to someone who's not aware of how they are paying for it. Being aware of this exchange of values, however, I can recognize what I'm paying for the service I'm being provided in the form of data, and I can make the conscious decision whether or not I want to pay what is being requested.

1. I feel sorry, on some level, for the people who are not aware of the personal data that they are leaving open, because they are ignoring a valuable asset that they have in that data. At the same time, however, they are taking advantage of that asset, whether they realize it or not.

2. Personally, I am aware of the asset that my data is, and I'm aware of how I'm sharing that asset. I'm aware of how these corporations are utilizing my "very, very personal details" and I've come to terms with it.

3. Personally, I'm actually really open with Facebook and Google, primarily (slashdot is in this on some level as well, but I don't post on slashdot near as much as I do elsewhere, just because I'm more of a lurker than a poster here, the majority of the time--sometimes, that does change and I get in a posting mood, like this; I do make a point to post on slashdot occasionally, because I see that as me giving them my data in exchange for them providing me the tool that slashdot is for me). I do so realizing what I'm doing, however. I realize that when I get into a debate on Facebook that reveals particularly personal information about me, or when I search Google for particularly personal details, or when I visit a website that reveals particularly personal details about me, that I am sharing this data about me. However, I see that as my payment for the service that is provided for me.

For instance, I'm active in poetry/spoken word. Typically, I pay $5 for 2 hours of a forum to share/hear poetry/spoken word. Rather than paying $5 for 2 hours on the forums that the internet provides me (namely Facebook and Google, again), I'm providing them data about me. These companies turn around and make that data into money. I'm fully aware of this happening, and have accepted it as me utilizing the asset that is my personal data in the form of indirect money from a third party source.

This does not create an issue for me, because I'm aware of it, I accept it, and I make the educated decision to trade my data for a service. It sounds like you would rather not provide that data for that service. I can understand that. However, I value the service, and I see it is an acceptable trade. They make their money off of my data, and I get the service that I desire in exchange.

I think it comes down to different mindsets about the matter. I see my personal data as an asset that I am willing to trade for a service that I see as valuable to me. You (correct me if I'm wrong on this) see your personal data as an asset to protect. Personally, I think both of those mindsets are valid and worth consideration.

Article didn't go into it, but I think of it more like this some times:

Google is probably the biggest one for me. They take my personal information and show me ads that I always ignore but which are targeted specifically at me. In exchange, they give me loads of tools that I don't have to pay them for at all (Gmail, Drive/Docs, Search, Calendar, free place to upload and stream my music on practically any device I own, Android to an extent, etc.).

So, yeah, technically, all I'm getting from it is targeted advertising, maybe a few deals I wouldn't have found otherwise. But in reality, the money they're making off of getting targeted advertising done is paying for all of these tools that I don't pay any real cash for. In my eyes, I'm trading my personal information for those tools, and I couldn't care less about the advertising. Essentially, my personal information is a valuable currency that I never run out of. It's just limited in where it's accepted, and it requires a little more discretion in where I do want to use it than other currencies.

Actually, this. The solution the hospital I was talking about included going to a Citrix XenApp farm. To make it even easier for the doctors, they also implemented a medical scribe system (basically, some easy to pay low wage students that followed the doctors around for their shift and did nothing but listen and compose the medical notes for each patient), along with an implementation of Dragon speech recognition. All of that together got the doctors not wanting to go back to the old system at all, actually, and ended up being a win for everyone involved. Security issues were significantly isolated and the doctors were all happy that their lives were easier than ever before. Also ultimately saved the hospital money over the long term.

Fixed that for myself...

Also, I wasn't involved with all of this directly when I was there, so didn't remember exactly what it was for the security part. I was involved with other software that didn't have these kind of worries, as the software I was involved with was just scripts run by the other software. Close enough to hear about the issues and some vague ideas of how they overcame them, but distant enough to not be involved in the process.

Yeah, best case we've deployed is a Citrix XenApp farm coupled with local computer access. Xen servers control medical software, local desktops are pretty free for email and porn (a surprising amount of porn for medics who are idle). We can control the Xen computers easily enough this way, local computers are wiped if they have a problem via our "perfect world" deployment policy*. It's nice, compromises are minimalistic at best and we segregate the desktops from the servers pretty solidly (with the file/print servers in the middle - "dual homed").

Doctors can do what they want, netops are happy with what they get to lock down, and we even pass a lot of the DSD compliance ratings (not that we're audited, but it's a good benchmark).

*Can't solve your problem in 10 minutes, a further 5 minutes to blow the machine back to standard image. 5 more to reconfigure default accounts and such (which is automated, but we also need to wait for download/ sync of emails etc.). 20 minutes downtime from start of call to end, maximum.

Actually, this. The solution the hospital I was talking about included going to a Citrix XenApp farm. To make it even easier for the doctors, they also implemented a medical scribe system (basically, some easy to pay low wage students that followed the doctors around for their shift and did nothing but listen and compose the medical notes for each patient), along with an implementation of Dragon speech recognition. All of that together got the doctors not wanting to go back to the old system at all, actually, and ended up being a win for everyone involved. Security issues were significantly isolated and the doctors were all happy that they're lives were easier than ever before. Also ultimately saved the hospital money over the long term.

On the flip side, I can think of one hospital I worked at that was a constant back and forth between the guys doing the network security and the doctors. The doctors won every time, with the guys doing the network security walking away with scraps of their generally good ideas. They eventually found a good compromise that didn't leave a bunch of security issues, but the doctors had the better leverage and wanted ease of use if they were going to use the computers at all. They just wouldn't use your computers if you made it too difficult (which was not very difficult at all, but not as easy as the old ways they did things). That said, they were able to figure things out, but if security makes the doctors' life more difficult, they'd rather just do it all without the computers, making the whole thing a moot point.

Having worked in hospitals, and currently working more in the background in the medical field, you would be really surprised how much of it needs access to the internet. Most of the software I've worked with in the medical field does, and it's only going more in the direction of needing access to the internet than away from such.

I can't speak for software in smaller clinics and stuff, as I'm not real experienced there. For a lot of hospitals and stuff, though, there's a lot of server farms hosted far off site that they have to connect to in order to do anything with the software.

I was part of UAT once for a large ticketing application and they provided us a SCRIPT to go through. I threw it away and came up with a document of 48 pages detailing all issues with the UI and proposals to solve it. I assume it promptly reached someone's e-mail trashcan, because I have received no replies and no proposals were considered or implemented.

*shudder*

My boss used to force me to write up a script for people to go through and test every new release of the software that I'm the lead developer for at my company. Amazingly obvious part that my boss didn't understand was, by the time I was done writing said script, anyone who ran through the script never found issues, because I had them fixed already. Then my boss would get furious when a client ran into an issue in it that I had never conceived of, and arguments galore would erupt.

Finally, I put every other item as "try every conceivable combination of everything you see here" just to make a point, even though the script did cover everything I could imagine being done with it (which has never been everything that can be done, as is always soon revealed). I promptly got into an argument with my boss, who did not like that, because "it didn't tell them what they need to actually do." After a nice hour of arguing my point and multiple coworkers from multiple different sections joining my side (all of whom were originally against me on this, so apparently I made some good arguments about it, even though it was just repeating the same 2-3 things over and over and over in as many different ways as I could conceive), the result was a new "script": "Break everything. Find what is too awkward or annoying to use in its current state. Report back your results."

Only once did I have a client who entered an agreement to do UAT for us when we were giving them the script and not get back "Yup, everything worked going through the script." That one time was something a lot like yours, and although we did end up deciding to effectively ignore half of their proposals, we had a lot of discussion and work because of it. Every client we updated to the new version called it the best version we had made to date. I only wish that I had more people like you doing that (half of the UAT and QA guys I get testing for me these days just shoot me an email every week, "Everything looks awesome so far!" Completely useless when the other half are providing me good information and asking questions that reveal issues that need to be worked on).